“Emission-free diesel” broke the key price threshold, electric cars make even less sense

For some solutions, politicians can dig themselves into self-destruction and still not implement them in the way they imagine. On the contrary, it would be enough to stop digging into this solution and it will establish itself, its price drops quickly even with limited use.

As a society, are we still capable of having a normal substantive conversation about key issues? Sometimes we feel that it is not possible. And the debates surrounding the reduction of CO2 emissions caused by human activity are clear evidence of this.

If we agree to go in this direction, there are countless paths we can take. They have different benefits, but they all make sense and everyone should help as they want and reasonably can. That would be rational, but that’s not how things work. Some people tend to define some kind of absolute good, the only right solutions that they think others must accept as theirs. And anything else they not only do not support, but even oppose it.

It doesn’t make any sense. It’s like going on a hike, you’re hungry along the way, some would rather have two snacks, but no, the expedition captain would forbid everyone to eat salami rolls and insist that everyone properly eat better food at the end of the trip. Well, good, but what if some don’t get there at all, what good does it do? This certainly not entirely accurate analogy is brought to mind by the way of handling synthetic fuels of internal combustion cars and their “non-support” to the point of friction in addition to the electrification of the entire transport.

We have no problem accepting the thesis that the electric drive is theoretically the holy grail, but in practice it is not and will not be for a long time. As long as we are not able to produce electricity in sufficient quantity, distribute it in sufficient quantity and store it efficiently, meaning cheaply and with high energy density means, it will be a very partial solution, only for someone, only somewhere. Imposing it on everyone then means effectively preventing improvement, because before we get to a situation where electrification is effective, another decades may pass, during which – dare we say – most people will not contribute to anything and in any way, because they will not have the means, or they won’t be able to use it at all. It’s like that lunch only and only at the end of a long journey.

One thing that can help immediately is synthetic fuels, which are not truly emission-free, but can reduce CO2 emissions from running cars by about 90%. And you can deploy them immediately without doing anything else – sure, electricity from renewable sources is needed, but it doesn’t have to be that little, the problem is that it is generated at a different time and place than it is needed. Storing it in synthetic fuel is relatively efficient, as you can use the fuel created in this way in almost any car with the help of any gas station at any time and anywhere. So you don’t have to develop and sell new cars, you don’t have to build electrical infrastructure, about a million charging stations, etc. Despite the certain inefficiency of e-fuel production, this makes this alternative a viable solution from the point of view of the overall balance.

We have known for a long time that he exists, as well as the fact that politicians throw sticks under his feet. Why? Because it is not the real dream idol, it is meant to be “the final solution”. But why prevent someone from having a snack, if they can get to their destination better than others with snacks all the way there? For example, HVO 100 synthetic diesel works excellently in both old and modern cars and really reduces emissions almost to zero without anything else. It took several years for the ice to move, but now this solution is finally being supported in Germany as well. And it’s a growing success.

This is reported by the Mobil in Deutschland car club, which is pushing hard for the HVO 100, for example with the support of Walter Röhrl. According to him – and colleagues from Focus confirm this, one of the fundamental concerns that was associated with HVO 100 is quickly dissipating. So that it will be very expensive and therefore junk fuel. Only a month or so has passed since the beginning of sales in larger quantities, and the prices are steadily falling.

HVO is therefore still more expensive than classic diesel, but only by 9 euro cents, i.e. about CZK 2.20. Of course, this is nothing, but it is a significant psychological boundary, because “better diesel” (at least in terms of the burden not only on nature, but also on the engine) is suddenly not “discredited” by dramatically higher prices at gas stations. You see, if something costs 1.59 Euros and something else costs 1.68 Euros, it looks better than 1.59 and 1.72 Euros. If we consider that this fuel is still far from mass production, which will understandably make it cheaper, this is a fundamental shift so soon after the start of legal sales on the key German market.

Due to the current limits of their accumulators, we are long-term skeptical of electric cars as the only solution for automobile transport, and with this viable alternative they make even less sense. However, if so much can be solved through the HVO 100 simply by changing the fuel, why try to solve a little more in orders of magnitude more complicated ways with an unclear perspective? We do not adopt any rock-solid harnesses, we just say: Let’s talk about it, discuss it normally and find solutions – the solutions, not the solution, because one way will never fit all – how to help things as much as possible. We believe it wouldn’t hurt that much, certainly less than dogmatically insisting on a single path head on.

HVO 100 fuel is quickly spreading and becoming cheaper in Germany, it can help a lot and immediately. So why do many tend to trample him into the ground? Photo: Mobil in Deutschland, press materials

Sources: Mobil in Deutschland, Focus

Peter Miller

All articles on Autoforum.cz are comments expressing the editor’s or author’s opinion. Except for articles marked as advertising, the content is not sponsored or similarly influenced by third parties.